Jump to content

User talk:Deb: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 1,092: Line 1,092:


:For once I'd agree with you. It's not appropriate to remove geographical context, though I daresay [[User:IJBall]] (of whom I have no personal experience) would argue that he's just trying to keep it short for the purposes of the portal. In my experience, a few editors are obsessed with the idea of "overlinking" and make a habit of removing links wherever possible, and this particular user is no worse than others in this respect. I take your point about the personalized edit summaries, but I think you would need more egregious evidence of disruptive editing in order to get anywhere at ANI. [[User:Deb|Deb]] ([[User talk:Deb#top|talk]]) 17:11, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
:For once I'd agree with you. It's not appropriate to remove geographical context, though I daresay [[User:IJBall]] (of whom I have no personal experience) would argue that he's just trying to keep it short for the purposes of the portal. In my experience, a few editors are obsessed with the idea of "overlinking" and make a habit of removing links wherever possible, and this particular user is no worse than others in this respect. I take your point about the personalized edit summaries, but I think you would need more egregious evidence of disruptive editing in order to get anywhere at ANI. [[User:Deb|Deb]] ([[User talk:Deb#top|talk]]) 17:11, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
::Deb, see my revert to your revert – many, ''many'' editors are needlessly violating [[WP:OVERLINK]] and [[WP:NOPIPE]] at Portal current events lately. Somebody needs to put a stop to that. Also, countries ''do not'' need to be included for major international cities (e.g. London), or when the context of the Current event entry makes the country's location obvious. --[[User:IJBall|IJBall]] <small>([[Special:Contributions/IJBall|contribs]] • [[User talk:IJBall|talk]])</small> 17:13, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Revision as of 17:13, 4 July 2023

Notice Coming here to ask why I deleted your article? Read this page first...

If that doesn't help, read these FAQs.

1. Why did you delete my page when I hadn't finished writing it?

Answer: Don't create new articles unless you are sure they meet wikipedia's criteria, particularly notability and verifiability. If you want to practice, there is the sandbox facility and Wikipedia:Articles for creation where you can get a second opinion from a more experienced contributor. And if you really can't help yourself, use {{underconstruction}} so other people will know you are still working on it.

2. Why did you delete my page for advertising? I wasn't trying to advertise!

Answer: Read Wikipedia:NPOV for guidance on how to word an article so that it doesn't sound like an advertisement.

3. Why did you delete my page for advertising? It was about a non-profit organisation!

Answer: Non-profit organisations advertise all the time - it's still promotion and the rule applies to them just as it does to commercial bodies. See no 2 above.

4. Why did you delete my article without warning?

Answer: Because you are not entitled to a warning if you don't follow the guidelines. See no 1 above.

5. Why didn't you do a google search and find references for my article and put them in for me instead of just deleting it?

Answer: Because I don't have time to do the boring bits for you. I have enough boring bits of my own to work on, thank you.

6. You have a very interesting view of neutrality. The authors you give credence to have a definite point of view and you discount those that disagree.

Answer: There is of course no answer because this is not a question. It's a snide comment added by someone who doesn't understand the NPOV rule. Possibly a Ricardian revisionist.

And please SIGN YOUR POSTS, otherwise I don't know who is asking me the question!


Archives: 1, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27


Happy New Year, Deb!

Happy New Year!

Deb,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
— Moops ⋠T⋡ 00:16, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And to you and yours! Deb (talk) 08:08, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

— Moops ⋠T⋡ 00:16, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

Thank you and sorry for the "general" misunderstandings. It's a New Year, and I hope we can start over.

Singer2cantor (talk) 03:50, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seeed Studio

Is it possible for me to see the version of this article you deleted on 11 June 2020. I'd like to see an article on this topic on WP and this could be a potential starting point. ~Kvng (talk) 15:02, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a look and I can't put the text anywhere on Wikipedia as it's such a blatant advert - although it wasn't deleted as a copyright violation, it's clearly copied from the company's promotional literature. There are a few references, which I can probably put in your user space if you want. Deb (talk) 15:17, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can you give me the data for Akshata Prabhu that you recently deleted Because it was reviewed by Page reviewer and you deleted for promotions

Article I created was not promotional I never promoted the topic, but under speedy admins usually delete it without seeing contested notes, if you have seen it let me know? Omchoudhary20 (talk) 12:43, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen it. You said it had been reviewed but I can't see any record of a draft being submitted for review. Deb (talk) 12:57, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because it wasn’t draft, I published it some new page reviewer reviewed it, I can provide you screenshot, as I got an email. Omchoudhary20 (talk) 13:54, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If it was meant always to be submitted through draft, why there’s option directly publish without submission via draft, and if reviewers are approving it, I think generally should be going through discussion as there’s option. See I’m not aware about exact rules of wikipedia but I know how generally any other submissions works, there are 100s of ways to get articles published on wikipedia, you can request, or submit via draft, or you can directly publish if you rights, wikipedia helped me through it itself, just Because some random personal requested speedy you deleted it, I know I can also request speedy deletion and admins like you would delete it unless there’s contested notes, and you wouldn’t care since you might even dont know about the topics, as 1000s of people those are celebs since decades but they’re not concerned about the digital establishment, I’m trying to give them space, as I’m fan of 90s-20s I’ve been following them I seen their works in industry. I’m a fan of bollywood (part of Indian film industry) i guess you should revert it in respect to topic (Akshata is Literally the supermodel of 2000s I can give 1000s references, non press releases I got know about her through recent PR (paid articles) but I remember her through her videos and modelling career back in TV when digital media wasnt covering much . Omchoudhary20 (talk) 14:03, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you still think it should be deleted why not have discussion on deletion, I completely understand you know more about policies and guidelines but reviewer considered it, so on that point I want to be sure where I went wrong and I want know what did i do wrong. Omchoudhary20 (talk) 14:05, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most reviewers who patrol new pages are not administrators and they only check the basics. You say "I’m not aware about exact rules of wikipedia". There are many pages of guidelines that will help you understand what you did wrong, or you can try Wikipedia:Teahouse to get answers to specific questions. When you started the page from scratch, you will have seen a message saying "The page "Akshata Prabhu" does not exist. You can create a draft and submit it for review, or you may create the page "Akshata Prabhu" directly, but ..." The draft option is always preferable for inexperienced contributors who aren't familiar with the guidelines. I'll be honest, I think this deletion was borderline and I'm prepared to restore the article text to draft space, but you must take care to improve the English and tone down the promotional wording before submitting it for an independent review - otherwise it could be deleted again. Deb (talk) 14:58, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – January 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2022).

Administrator changes

added
readded Stephen
removed

Interface administrator changes

removed Nihiltres

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Voting for the Sound Logo has closed and the winner is expected to be announced February to April 2023.
  • Tech tip: You can view information about IP addresses in a centralised location using bullseye which won the Newcomer award in the recent Coolest Tool Awards.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:08, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2022 & 2023

Please give your input in regard to the 2022 deaths which have importance tags on them.

Far too many sports events have been added to 2023; which ones should be removed? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 13:41, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jo-Anne Green

Why did you delete my page? Jo-Anne Green (talk) 21:02, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Manta(platform)

Hi Deb, I was wondering about the reasons behind the deletion of Draft: Manta(platform). I have clarified my affiliation, cited reliable sources for each fact, and wasn't quiet understanding why the draft page has been removed.

It would be great if you could clarify and help a little. Wiki119988 (talk) 05:51, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Stanhope, Countess of Chesterfield (d. 1677)

Hello Deb, since you started the article, I was wondering, coming across this portrait of COUNTESS OF CHESTERFIELD by Peter Lely if this might be Elizabeth Stanhope, Countess of Chesterfield (d. 1677). I added the file to the Category:Elizabeth Stanhope, Countess of Chesterfield (d. 1677) and left the check categories. Cheers. Lotje (talk) 17:05, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for M Lhuillier

An editor has asked for a deletion review of M Lhuillier. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Orasims (talk) 05:51, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Contentious topics procedure now in effect

You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to updates on the Arbitration Committee's contentious topics procedure revision process.

In December, the Arbitration Committee adopted the contentious topics procedure, which replaces the former discretionary sanctions system. The contentious topics procedure is now in effect following an initial implementation period.

The drafting arbitrators warmly thank all those who have worked to implement the new procedure during this implementation period and beyond. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:44, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Contentious topics procedure now in effect

Women in Red in February 2023

Women in Red Feb 2023, Vol 9, Iss 2, Nos 251, 252, 255, 256, 257, 259


Online events:

Tip of the month:

  • Explore Wikipedia for all variations of the woman's name (birth name,
    married name, re-married name, pen name, nickname)

Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 07:26, 30 January 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – February 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2023).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The Vector 2022 skin has become the default for desktop users of the English Wikipedia.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Voting in the 2023 Steward elections will begin on 05 February 2023, 21:00 (UTC) and end on 26 February 2023, 21:00 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
  • Voting in the 2023 Community Wishlist Survey will begin on 10 February 2023 and end on 24 February 2023. You can submit, discuss and revise proposals until 6 February 2023.
  • Tech tip: Syntax highlighting is available in both the 2011 and 2017 Wikitext editors. It can help make editing paragraphs with many references or complicated templates easier.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:37, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Draft: Mike Afolarin. Thank you.User:Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 09:55, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ANI discussion regarding WikiProject Years

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. I am notifying you because you were mentioned in a post regarding a dispute relating to WikiProject Years. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:47, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

article created for

Hi, I noticed you have locked creation (salted) of Priyanka Chahar Choudhary page, but an article exists at Priyanka Chahar. It was created today (by someone else and not me!!) and I do think GNG passes now. I'll let you deal with what to do about that article. A draft also exists Draft:Priyanka Chahar Choudhary.

Paging @Iridescent:, @Liz:, @JBW: as you all had contributed to the block. Thanks. Kiran_891 (TALK) 23:55, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The new page is very different from the draft (which I'll delete). I don't think I can justify speedy deletion for the new article. Deb (talk) 08:45, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The version of the article deleted at AfD is currently visible at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Priyanka_Choudhary&oldid=1019035946 which I thought was sufficiently similar to the new article to justify speedy deletion, so I deleted the new article. However, I then read your comment above, Deb. Having looked at it again, I see that there is somewhat more evidence of notability in the new version, so I have restored the article. JBW (talk) 09:49, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ReNew Power Page

Hi,

I wanted to change the name of this page as the brand has gone through a rebranding process. Will it be possible to help us in that.

This is the article on the rebranding https://www.nasdaq.com/press-release/renew-unveils-new-brand-identity-as-it-reinforces-leadership-in-providing Candidawork (talk) 13:14, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We need to change the name is it possible? Can you help us with it. Candidawork (talk) 06:22, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You'll still need to declare a COI and ensure that the account isn't used by more than one person. Deb (talk) 08:02, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Account Deletion.

Hello Deb, I am a new user to wikipedia "YT The Transit Diaries" I have been given a deletion notice and would like my username and user page to be changed to abide by Wikipedia's spam TOS. I do not know how to change my username, if you could change my username to "The Transit Diaries" and remove all promotional content from my user page, that would be amazing, as I do not know how to perform these actions. I do not want to be deleted from Wikipedia and I want to stay on this platform.

Sincerely, YT The Transit Diaries. YT The Transit Diaries (talk) 09:01, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:2023#Yukon high-altitude object

The IP may well be a part of block evading troll who have been involved in Wikipedia for more than three years. I have put a SPI on them and I believe they deserve a longer block. Apparently they created an account "Wikianon2023" and I believe the SPI & archives should be moved in there moving forward. MarioJump83 (talk) 01:02, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I see the named account is already blocked. I'll increase the block on that IP. Deb (talk) 09:11, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Page Undelete Request

Hello Admin, I requested you to delete the BoAt (company) but now my views are changed after looking at the new sources. | Harvard Case Study, Kenresearch are good enough for passing the notability. This draft can be improved more. SmokeyJoe I can see that you often discuss about deletion review pages, so I am tagging you if you have something to add.

I can see there is one more draft from the name Draft:BoAt Lifestyle, I guess this can also work.Fishandnotchips (talk) 10:09, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for informing me. If you want to add anything to the draft article (I would suggest that more references are needed if it's going to pass review), please do so. Deb (talk) 14:31, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for informing me. If you want to add anything to the draft article (I would suggest that more references are needed if it's going to pass review), please do so. Deb (talk) 14:31, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback Deb. I have added more international research firm related sources. Although, I believed that 2 sources are enough for notability but now the sources look more promising. Can we shift this page into mainspace now?Fishandnotchips (talk) 14:41, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
By all means submit it for review. I'm unlikely to be the one doing it. Deb (talk) 14:46, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red March 2023

Women in Red Mar 2023, Vol 9, Iss 3, Nos 251, 252, 258, 259, 260, 261


Online events:

See also:

Tip of the month:

  • Mobile phone readers may only see the article "lead" – take some time to make it shine!
    Include something to keep people reading.

Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 12:52, 26 February 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – March 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2023).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • The 2023 appointees for the Ombuds commission are AGK, Ameisenigel, Bennylin, Daniuu, Emufarmers, Faendalimas, JJMC89, MdsShakil, Minorax and Renvoy as regular members and Zabe as advisory members.
  • Following the 2023 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: Mykola7, Superpes15, and Xaosflux.
  • The Terms of Use update cycle has started, which includes a [p]roposal for better addressing undisclosed paid editing. Feedback is being accepted until 24 April 2023.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:18, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Drbhushanchittawadagi12

You may wish to revoke TPA. Cahk (talk) 07:35, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Deb, Can you please provide me with the reason for the recent deletion of the Kofluence page?

Can you please guide me on how to address the reasons you mentioned for the deletion of the Kofluence page, so that I can make a valuable contribution and create a new page on Wikipedia in the correct format?. Raamprabhu 05:25, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Deborah Kerr

Deborah Kerr has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 00:28, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Jessica Pierce

Hi, asking you to reconsider the deletion of Jessica Pierce. As per Special:Undelete/Jessica Pierce, the CSD tag was already declined by Ragesoss and contested by Phil Bridger; the article clearly indicates significance as she has worked as a professor and has published multiple books. Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:41, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the references to support the claim of notability? I've published multiple books but I'm not notable. Does she actually hold a Professor's chair or is she just a teacher? Deb (talk) 11:42, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You know (or it least should know) that references are not required to avoid deletion via WP:A7, but anyway the references were right there in the article before they were removed by the deletion tagger. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:56, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Deb, I'm sorry, but you've been an admin for way too long to not know that A7 doesn't require references to support the claim of significance. Galobtter (pingó mió) 21:12, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe becoming a professor is itself significant enough to warrant an article in an encyclopedia. Can you elaborate as to why you think otherwise? Sagsbasel (talk) 09:29, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You've been around way too long to not know that unreferenced content can be immediately deleted. Deb (talk) 14:37, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Stop defending the indefensible. Much of the content of this article was sourced, but the now rightly blocked deletion nominator removed the sources. Do you follow WP:ADMINACCT? If not you should resign your adminship, and if so you should properly explain why you deleted this article. If you made a mistake then you should have corrected it when it was pointed out to you, rather than doubling down on it. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:50, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Don't order me around. I've been out of the country for several days and wasn't here to check the facts until a few hours ago, by which time it appears it was resolved. If you want to stir it up again, I won't be taking any notice of you. Deb (talk) 22:18, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article said that Pierce felt independent from affiliations. There was no source for this information, which tells me the article was written by a friend of hers. The two editors who objected to the deletion refused to explain their reasoning, with one only saying that Pierce's notability was self-evident. I'm not sure what that even meant. I believe these objections were in bad faith, and suspect these editors may also know Pierce. Sagsbasel (talk) 09:25, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you, an admin, rewarding edit-warring and the removal of references? If I had had more time this morning I would have reported the editor who tagged this for edit-warring and any other admin would have blocked them rather than rewarding them. And you have the cheek to say here that you were right. Revert this decision now. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:52, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You refused to discuss your objection to the deletion and were belligerent with me. I don't get why you wouldn't begin with civility? Do you know Ms Pierce? Sagsbasel (talk) 09:30, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sagbasel knows for a fact that there were a large number of sources in the article, because he or she removed them before nominating it for deletion. Sagbasel then demonstrated his or her complete lack of understanding (or contempt) for the deletion procedure by repeatedly adding a proposed deletion tag to the article after one was removed. I have restored the article, reverted to the last version before Sagsbasel removed most of the content, and I am now updating with information about more recent books. There are dozens of reviews of Pierce's work in reputable scholarly and journalistic publications, meaning that she meets WP:AUTHOR. At the very least, there is no case for A7 (and the article is not eligible for a prod). Sagbasel, if you remain convinced that the article should be deleted, I encourage you to nominate it at AfD. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:58, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I nominated the article for deletion before editing the article. I am not sure why you would lie?
The article also did not have a "large number of sources". There were three book reviews for the same book that she was listed as a co-author to that wasn't used for any purpose in the article other than to establish the book's publishing company.
This does not meet WP:AUTHOR. There was no evidence she is cited by her peers here. There is no significant new concept here. There is no significant or well known collective body of work here. And there is no significant monument or exhibition to point to here.
I did nominate it at AfD. Other editors took offense to it but refused to ellaborate, saying only that her notabiluty was self-evident. Whatever that means. Sagsbasel (talk) 10:07, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You nominated the article for deletion multiple times after this edit, which removed around 12 journalistic/scholarly articles focussed on Pierce's work. And no, you have never nominated this article at AfD. I am not going to argue with you about this. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:17, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You said I "removed them before nominating it for deletion". I clearly nominated it for deletion before editing the article. It's right there in the history. Why lie? Sagsbasel (talk) 10:33, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You left this comment on my talk page, "The article is not eligible for WP:PROD. It has previously been nominated for deletion." So you clearly know it was nominated for deletion. You then threatened me to not nominate it again. But here you're saying "And no, you have never nominated this article at AfD." So it was never nominated for AfD? So why can't I nominate it then? Sagsbasel (talk) 10:37, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You nominated the article for deletion before and after removing sources. Before you removed the sources, you were unsuccessful. After removing the sources, you were successful. Perhaps that's a coincidence. And no, the article was never nominated at AfD. You nominated the article for speedy deletion and proposed deletion. You did not nominate it at articles for deletion. These are different processes, as I think you know. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:47, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the three book reviews in the article reviewed the same book and were not integral to the article. They were used to estalish the publishing company.
Oh, now you say I nominated the article for deletion before I edited the article. So you did lie. Funny how that works.
I never specified how I nominated when I first said I nominated the article for deletion. Plus you said my AfD nomination wasn't a real nomination. So that only leaves the speedy delete nomination. But now you say I nominated the article several times, so the AfD does count? I can see why you need it to now so you don't look like a complete liar.
Sagsbasel (talk) 10:55, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We establish the notability of individuals through third-party sources. For someone notable primarily for publishing books (like many academics), this is going to include book reviews in magazines, newspapers, and scholarly journals -- precisely the kinds of sources you removed in the edit I mentioned above. And yes, you did specify how you nominated the article for deletion. You said about an hour ago that you 'did nominate it at AfD'. But this is not the case. Starting a conversation about an article on Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion is not the same as nominating an article at AfD. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:11, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So how many book reviews does a person need to be considered notable? Does it matter if a person is just a coauthor on the book? I'd be glad to start an article for every person that meets your criteria.
You still won't say why you lied and said I only nominated the article for deletion after I edited the page when you know that's not true? Or at least admit to being wrong and issue a retraction. And no wonder no one tries to improve this site anymore, you're all quite rude to new people. You have three ways to delete an article but I better make sure I figure out the one way I need to do it but I better not talk about it on a talk page because that's not where you talk about things but if I get it wrong you'll be sure to harass me for it to no end because you have so many stupid acronyms you can throw out at me to get your way. Sagsbasel (talk) 15:15, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The general notability guideline is that "[a] topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The subject-specific guideline for "creative professionals" (e.g., authors) says that people are assumed notable if "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews", or if "The person's work (or works) has ... won significant critical attention". This all speaks to the importance of published reviews of work. It is not the case, off the top of my head, that we have hard-and-fast guidelines on numbers of reviews (beyond the general notability guideline, which requires "multiple" sources -- i.e., 2+), or how co-authorship impacts these requirements (beyond the specific guideline's reference to "a major role" in co-creation). So there are judgement calls here. Right now, the article cites around 11 reviews of Pierce's coauthored books (including articles in the Wall Street Journal, the Daily Telegraph, and New Scientist, alongside scholarly journals of various kinds) and a smaller number of reviews of Pierce's sole-authored books (including one in Times Higher Education). It also cites a number of other valuable sources, such as published interviews. There will surely be more sources out there I haven't cited; I'll add a few more once I've posted this comment. I think these comfortably demonstrate that Pierce meets the notability guidelines I've mentioned. Perhaps you disagree.
I did not lie, and I politely ask you to please drop that point. I'll say nothing more about it after this post, but since you asked me directly, I will answer. I did not say that you "only nominated the article for deletion after [you] edited the page". I said you "removed [sources] before nominating it for deletion", which is true. Here is where you removed sources, and here is one of the occasions on which you subsequently nominated the article for deletion. I'm sorry if what I said wasn't clear or if you feel it was misleading, but I didn't lie, as what I said was correct. (Even if it wasn't correct, would it not be charitable to assume I was saying something I thought to be true, rather than lying?) And I'm sorry if you haven't felt particularly welcomed. But I hope you can appreciate that from where I'm sitting, your conduct doesn't look stellar. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:06, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You said I edited the article before I nominated the article for deletion. That isn't true. That makes it a lie. But you're saying now you didn't use the word edit, instead you said I removed sources. That removal of sources was an edit, right? So it doesn't make a difference what specific word you used, either way what you said was patently false. So what's the charitable option here you want me to take? That you didn't check the edit history and were just made it all up on a whim to win an argument? That would still make it a lie--making up things--wouldn't it? And it's funny how you tell me to be charitable while at the same time accusing me of various things this whole time. You're a liar and also a hypocrite. Sagsbasel (talk) 23:41, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sagsbasel "You nominated the article for deletion before and after removing sources." Do you disagree with this comment? Because you clearly reinstated the deletion tag multiple times after removing the sources. If you keep casting aspersions and attacking Josh you're going to get blocked for personal attacks. It's understandable that you don't know the differences between WP:CSD, WP:PROD, and WP:AFD, but if you don't, don't attack those who do - don't accuse people of not following procedure or policy, if you don't know the procedure or haven't read the policy. Galobtter (pingó mió) 00:00, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Let's look at personal attacks. Your buddy Josh said (and I assume you are friends since you're calling him by just his first name, eh?), "Sagbasel knows for a fact that there were a large number of sources in the article". There were three book reviews for the same book in the article. I wouldn't count that as a "Large number of sources". Maybe your buddy Josh thinks three is a big number. I don't. Also, the reviews weren't being used to source any information in the paragraph I deleted. If they can be used tfor the article then by all means add to the article and use the sources. The paragraph was just a rehash of Pierce's publishing history which already has its own section in the article.
I think I have been perfectly clear which statement I take issue with. It's not the random one you chose to suite your own ends, it's when your buddy Josh said "because he or she removed them before nominating it for deletion." The editing history clearly shows that I nominated the article for deletion before editing it. Also, Joshy boy says I didn't nominate the article for AfD, so there is no other nomination according to him. So either Josh knowing used false information or he fabricated this information to defame me. Either way is a lie, right?
Your buddy also said, "Sagbasel then demonstrated his or her complete lack of understanding (or contempt) for the deletion procedure by repeatedly adding a proposed deletion tag to the article after one was removed." I'm new and Josh didn't give me a charitable view when he said I had contempt for the process, but asks me to be charitable with his falsehoods? A classic case of do as I say, not as I do. That's hypocrisy.
If you're inclined to block people for personal attacks I suggest you start with Josh. You'd block your friend, right? Sagsbasel (talk) 02:05, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, your edit removed around 12 secondary sources focussed on Pierce/her work; it was not just a case of removing three book reviews. Here is the article before you started editing it; here it is afterwards. Footnotes 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 17, 18, 19, 21, and 23 were clear examples of secondary sources you removed. (Incidentally, I don't think Galobtter and I have worked together closely before, though I may be wrong. Everyone is welcome to call me Josh.) Josh Milburn (talk) 09:20, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence says "These observations are used to make a case that animals may have a sense of morality". This is is a speculative claim and those sources don't support this claim. Sagsbasel (talk) 09:37, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you believe that Pierce and Bekoff do not make a case that animals may have a sense of morality? I'm not claiming that animals do have a sense of morality. I'm making a claim about what Pierce and Bekoff argue. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:40, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter what I believe or you believe. This is an encyclopedia. Sagsbasel (talk) 09:44, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I know. You claimed that something mentioned in the article is 'speculative' and unsupported by sources. I am pushing back against that, because I suspect you have misunderstood what the article actually said. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:54, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've just realised that I've made a procedural mistake. Deb, I reverted your deletion because I thought you were deleting the article as an expired PROD (for which the article was not eligible). But I now see that you actually deleted the article on the basis of CSDA7, meaning that I was probably acting out of procedure by restoring the article. Sorry about that. I hope you don't believe that the article in its current form warrants an A7 deletion (the current version more closely resembles the version not deleted by Ragesoss, rather than the version you deleted). If you do, then please redelete the article, and we can take it from there. If you don't believe the current article warrants deletion, perhaps we can leave it to Sagsbasel to nominate at AfD. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:47, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're a philosopher and focus on the same fields as Pierce? Do you know Pierce? I dunno, it just seems like a strange coincidence that you added so much unsourced information to her article. You knew she had books coming out. How? you knew how she felt about her affiliations. Again, how would you know these things? You have to know her. Right? And you also put her up for a flimsy dyk (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Jessica_Pierce). Oh, Pierce thinks animals have morals? It's not proven? It's just, like, her opinion, man? And no mention of her more famous coauthor in that dyk. Weird. Sagsbasel (talk) 02:48, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I know Pierce's work (I've been fairly critical of her in print) but I don't think we've ever met or spoken. I have not added any unsourced material to the article. The 'unsourced' claim you've repeated come back to about her loose affiliation/feeling unattached is (and, apart from when you removed the source from the article, always has been) sourced to a lengthy piece in Times Higher Education. As for her claim about animals having a sense of morality; it's what she argues at length in a scholarly monograph published by the Univeristy of Chicago Press. You don't have to agree with her, but I encourage you to read her work before accusing her of lacking evidence. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:37, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And on forthcoming books -- again, the information was sourced to her website. Not the best source, admittedly, but an an acceptable use of a primary source, in my view. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:56, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pierce's feelings are not sourced in the lede. The forthcoming books are sourced to her personal website's main page, it says "Welcome!", but there's nothing about forthcoming books at the main page. It's not 'my claim' that the information was unsourced, it's a fact: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jessica_Pierce&oldid=737557288. Here's a helpful guide on how to use sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources. Sagsbasel (talk) 09:10, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, it wasn't sourced in the lead, but, as per WP:LEADCITE, there's no requirement to source information in the lead that is cited further down. Here is an archived version of Pierce's welcome page around the time when I accessed it (and the archived version has now been added to the article). As you can see, it clearly lists her then forthcoming (now published) books. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:24, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Section break

Sagsbasel has now restructured the article somewhat; per BRD, I reverted, but Sagsbasel reverted back. I encourage people involved in the conversation above to join the coversation on the article talk page at Talk:Jessica Pierce#Having separate career and philosophy sections so that we can reach a consensus on how to best structure the article. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:02, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note on the selection of notable deaths in the 2022 article

Hi Deb, I noticed that you trimmed the list of leaders in this edit about a week ago. Would you mind if I ask what is the basis of choosing these celebrities but not others? For example, why choose Pope Benedict XVI but not Chinese president Jiang Zemin? Windywendi (talk) 22:31, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon I've started a discussion at Talk:2022 on the inclusion of Shinzo Abe & Jiang Zemin in the lead of 2022 which you may be interested in joining. Carter00000 (talk) 08:06, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Restoring Simenona Martinez

i had an email exchange via email with wikipedia and they referred me to here. 2603:8000:1A00:E2E5:10AA:2AF3:AB59:2A92 (talk) 15:09, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly do you want? And who are you? Deb (talk) 15:11, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To retore the wikipedia page from Simenona Martinez 2603:8000:1A00:E2E5:10AA:2AF3:AB59:2A92 (talk) 15:16, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
for* Simenona Martinez 2603:8000:1A00:E2E5:10AA:2AF3:AB59:2A92 (talk) 15:18, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you think I should do that? What is your interest in this, as someone who has never edited before, even the Simenona Martinez? Are you aware that there is already a draft article of this title? Deb (talk) 15:22, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It was deleted and vandalized. I would like it restored. 2603:8000:1A00:E2E5:10AA:2AF3:AB59:2A92 (talk) 15:26, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am asking the previous draft be restored. I'm aware of the one in draft. 2603:8000:1A00:E2E5:10AA:2AF3:AB59:2A92 (talk) 15:27, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you want me to consider this request, please sign in first. Deb (talk) 15:37, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok i have done that RobbinCavery (talk) 16:02, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And give a reason, please. Deb (talk) 16:13, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
because it needs to be restored after vandalization. It's a source of information that may be helpful or insightful to others. RobbinCavery (talk) 16:20, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It was highly promotional, thus not helpful. That's why it was deleted. If you want to create the article, please start again, taking note of the reasons why both article and draft were deleted. Also remember to declare any conflict of interest. Deb (talk) 16:22, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you restore the version that was not promotional? The actresses had her own show on the Disney channel and was in blockbuster movies. RobbinCavery (talk) 16:34, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such version. Deb (talk) 16:35, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The page had been up for years without protest until it was vandalized. RobbinCavery (talk) 16:39, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
i would have to create the article from scratch? RobbinCavery (talk) 16:41, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
can you verify the changes RobbinCavery (talk) 17:10, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've checked it. There was no vandalism, just a bad article. I won't be restoring it. If you still want to contest it, go to Wikipedia:Deletion review. Deb (talk) 17:12, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There was vandalism. Its in the records of the updates. I jush updated the article but that still doesn't meet the requirements? Can you explain further? RobbinCavery (talk) 17:19, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
there's movie franchise that links to this actress. I'm not understanding RobbinCavery (talk) 17:23, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This conversation is over. Deb (talk) 18:05, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of List of rulers named Henry for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of rulers named Henry, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of rulers named Henry until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ITN

Hi there. A gentle reminder that the ITN page is fully protected, so subject to WP:WHEEL re: reverting another admin's revert. In these cases, consider discussing with the admin directly (talk page), or posting at WP:ERRORS. Regards. —Bagumba (talk) 09:12, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reminder, but the admin should not have reverted another admin's change without discussing directly. Deb (talk) 09:14, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sophia Mendonça

Hello. How are you? As I saw that you deleted this page, I would like to ask you to consider deletion requests for these related pages: Selma Sueli Silva, Sophia Mendonça, Amores (a)Típicos, Template:Sophia Mendonça, Outro Olhar, Danielle, Asperger, Neurodivergentes, Autismo no Feminino, Metamorfoses, TransParente and Vozes da Maturidade. Thanks. Chronus (talk) 07:21, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've been looking at them, but I'd like a second opinion on some. Don't worry, other admins will be taking a look. Deb (talk) 07:24, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Deb This is an obvious case of WP:SPAM. Please, see this deletion discussion on Portuguese Wikipedia. Chronus (talk) 07:27, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red April 2023

Women in Red Apr 2023, Vol 9, Iss 4, Nos 251, 252, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266


Online events:

See also:

Tip of the month:

Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 07:51, 27 March 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – April 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2023).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:10, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gertraut Munk

Hello. I appologize for writing to you, but I must confess my suprise to see that you have deleted articles without giving any prior warning or oportunity for people to voice their opinion, as is normally done when an article is considered for deletion except when it is obviously non-notable.
Normally, people are given first a warning, and then an oportunity to voice their opinion in a discussion about the article, before it is deleted.
For example: you deleted the article Gertraut Munk without any discussion whatsoever. May I be allowed to point out, that Gertraut Munk was a so called "court jew" and the personal banker of an emperor. Such a position was a position of great importance both politically and financially and uncommon (though not unknown) for a woman in this time period. She is therefore notable, and if you were not aware of this, you would have been given the oportunity to be informed, if you had started a deleting discussion about the page instead of simply deleting in imediately on the assumption that she lacked notability.
Further more, in such a specialized subject as this, you may not necessarily find so much information by a quick google search. When it comes to modern people, I know that method is often used to determin notability, but that is a flawed method when it comes to historical people in subjects that has become subjects of interest to historians just the past few decades.
Now: I suffer from anxiety, and are consequently not a person suited to involved myself in arguments on Wikipedia. I prefer to stay out of all communication on wikipedia, so as to avoid getting my anxeity triggered by aggressive arguments to the detriment of my health, since communication here is not suitable for fragile people. Nevertheless, had you started a deletion discussion, I would have contributed with my knowledge on the subject and other people would have been given the oportunity to voice their opinion, some of whom may have knowledge of this subject and recongized its notability.
This was not an article of which the assumption of non-notability could be made; it was an article about an obscure historical subject.
May I humbly suggest, that in the future, you will give warning and and start a deletion discussion about the article you want to delete, and give oportunity to people to voice ther opinion, before deleting an article who is not obviously non-notable. At least when it comes to historical people within subjects you may yourself not have knowledge about.
Wise by experience, I am aware of the fact that communication on Wikipedia is not a good thing for my health, and I will appologize a second time for writing to you: I intend no harm with my post. But I do have knowledge within history, and I will allow myself to post this, and hope that you will at least consider this when encountering articles about people prior to the 19thcentury here on Wikipedia. This does not need to result in any sort of discussion: I simply ask you to humbly consider this. Thank you, and have a lovely day. --Aciram (talk) 14:14, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What I would say is that, as a result of the comments you made about my moving one of your other articles to draft, I looked at your contributions and found that you have produced a large number of poor-quality short stubs that would not have passed review if they had first been created in draft. If I see an article that is not fit to be in mainspace, regardless of who wrote it, I will speedy delete it. I would recommend that you draft your articles in future, so that you can be alerted to any problems before they get deleted for not meeting the criteria for inclusion. If you believe Gertraut Munk really does have a claim to notability, I can restore the article, but it will go into draft space, not into mainspace, until it is properly referenced and the evidence for her notability is clearly stated. Deb (talk) 14:43, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Problematic editing by user Vg8443

Hi Deb,

I hope you are well. I'm afraid we've got a clear case of WP:CIR on our hands. New User Vg8443 is editing Deaths in 1989 and making many mistakes. There are problems with spelling, capitalization, the format of the entries and the order of them. Not a single citation is added. Have a look at the Rev history and you see what I mean. He/she does not respond on (his/her talk page). I suspect Vg does not speak English and is unfamiliar with the latin script. I have to check every single edit and it takes all of my time currently. Earlier this week we already had to take action regarding other activities: see this discussion. What can I do? Mill 1 (talk) 07:10, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this. I have given a final warning and will block if there is any more such activity. Deb (talk) 07:13, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, you are to thank. Cheers Mill 1 (talk) 07:20, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your deletion of Bassa Vah alphabet

... left behind many pages linked to it, which now will have redlinks. This is not helpful. – •Raven  .talk 18:00, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the problem goes back to this move. Deb (talk) 08:07, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Football at the 2022 Asian Games - Men's tornament

Hi, can you undelete this please. As I've already removed the more applicable R3 tag, it isn't an uncontroversial deletion and thus should be treated at RfD as was ongoing. J947 † edits 23:21, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand. It's clearly a misspelling and the discussion doesn't seem to address this point. Deb (talk) 11:25, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Many redirects from misspellings are helpful, and in my opinion it's up to RfD to decide the fate of ones like such which aren't unambiguously implausible. J947 † edits 21:21, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The nomination doesn't address the true reason for deletion of the misspelled redirect. Deb (talk) 03:00, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm disputing that this is uncontroversial maintenance. I don't think that created-in-error G6 applies so much to redirects, where the very fact that an error was made is itself an indication that the redirect could be helpful. It's unhelpful pedantry to speedy delete a page based on its creation scenario when it might otherwise be kept if it were to progress through a slow deletion process.
I could just recreate the redirect, but that would further obfuscate an already confusing page history and log. J947 † edits 04:45, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@J947: If you are disputing that created-in-error G6 should not apply to redirects, that discussion should be probably had at the {{Db-error}} talk or CSD talk, as from the first edit of the template it says because it is a page that was obviously created in error, or a redirect left over from moving a page that was obviously created at the wrong title. (emphasis mine). The moment he created the template in Jan 2015, Oiyarbepsy added it to G6 at CSD as well. Jay 💬 06:36, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what I said – but perhaps created-in-error G6 indeed should not apply to redirects as a blanket rule, to be completely honest. It doesn't matter whether a redirect is created in error or not as to whether it is helpful to the reader; all bad redirects that fall under G6 can be handled via R3 or RfD anyway.
But the point is: (a) I contest that the deletion of this redirect is helpful, (b) therefore an undeletion should occur as this is now obviously a controversial deletion, and (c) given it survived R3 and was at RfD should not have been G6'd in the first place. J947 † edits 08:45, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand how you can contest that the deletion of the redirect is helpful when you are yourself nominating it for deletion. Deb (talk) 08:53, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll shut up in a moment, but I was simply surprised to see it speedied when I'd already removed the speedy, and was hoping a quick undeletion would clarify the situation – irrespective of my personal opinion on its merits. Starting this thread did not turn out particularly helpful at all. J947 † edits 09:07, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you're saying, I just think your action in removing the speedy notice was inappropriate. Deb (talk) 09:10, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, removing the R3? Seemed a pretty plausible misspelling – not particularly helpful, but nor too out of the blue. Only later when I realised the correctly-spelt redirect was unhelpful did I think this redirect deserved deletion. Roughly 60% chance of being deleted at RfD, I'd suggest – which far clears the bar of speediability. J947 † edits 10:04, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The act of contesting the deletion doesn't make it controversial. But if you say that the G6 deletion was not valid, and the deleter disagrees, then it becomes controversial. You cannot compare R3 and G6. They are opposites in a way - G6 may act on a redirect created from a page move, whereas R3 specifically says it does not apply to redirects created as a result of a page move, and you were right in declining the R3 (although you did not decline it for this reason). Jay 💬 10:17, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(the moved page was also recently created). G6 error really shouldn't be applied to old redirects though anyway, for the same reason as R3 cannot be. J947 † edits 22:57, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

deletion of Kitchen Studios article

hey there, i really don't understand why the article i wrote on a very legitimate artist collective in my city, working abroad, making a name for itself, was deleted. this whole process really makes no sense. Stefano blanca (talk) 09:25, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Whether it's legitimate is irrelevant. You have to follow the rules on notability ("making a name for itself" suggests it hasn't reached that level yet), advertising (see Wikipedia:NPOV) and declare any conflict of interest you may have. Deb (talk) 12:48, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cloudibn13 talk page use

Hi Deb,

I just wanted to note here that the user Cloudibn13, who you blocked eight months ago for promotional editing and username, is using their talk page to further promote their business (diff) instead of placing an unblock and name change request.

Regards, — AP 499D25 (talk) 08:17, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red May 2023

Women in Red May 2023, Vol 9, Iss 5, Nos 251, 252, 267, 268, 269, 270


Online events:

See also:

Tip of the month:

  • Use the Google translate app and camera on your phone to translate text from an article or book

Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 18:27, 27 April 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

"Case of the black bitch" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Case of the black bitch has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 28 § Case of the black bitch until a consensus is reached. Mathglot (talk) 18:04, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Battles of The Ancient World (Video Game)

A non-web-based video game is not eligible for A7, which is why I tagged it as G11. I'm glad it's gone as it was a piece of crud created by an incompetent editor, but... --Bbb23 (talk) 16:49, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out. I'll change it. Deb (talk) 16:51, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1885 Gorge Bridge train crash

I’d like this back in draftspace to rewrite to fix the copyright issue. SurferSquall (talk) 17:04, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can't do that because of the copyright violation. You will need to start again. Deb (talk) 17:09, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why? SurferSquall (talk) 17:26, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because it's a copyright violation, as was said. It would be unlawful to provide you with a copy. Just rewrite it based on the original sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:11, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
why would it not be allowable fair use-wise? it’s material compiled by a county government. SurferSquall (talk) 18:24, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you need a copy of this when you have the original source to work from? Just get on with it, rather than ask for a copy of what you already have. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:01, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you still can't wrap you head around why this is a copyright violation, quite frankly you lack the competence to be editing here. It's been explained to you multiple times. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:45, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying it wasn't a violation-I wasn't aware having it again in draftspace would be such an issue. point taken, I guess. SurferSquall (talk) 01:58, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Creation protection

Some group of socks involved in UPE is continuously trying to create Abhilash Pillai (film writer). It was deleted multiple number of times within a short period of time. I think it's creation in mainspace should be limited to extended confirmed users. Please do consider my opinion. 202.164.137.17 (talk) 15:13, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – May 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2023).

Guideline and policy news

  • A request for comment about removing administrative privileges in specified situations is open for feedback.

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:22, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Hemanth Choudhary/sandbox

Hello, Deb,

I guess you disagreed with my assessment when I removed the CSD tag on this User page that labeled it as promotional. Then Jim deleted the page and decided to undelete it. I guess it shows how admins can assess pages differently. But it's still useful to look over the page history of tagged articles. I hope you are having a good weekend. Liz Read! Talk! 08:29, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I wish I was! :-) Deb (talk) 08:31, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PS. What makes it blatantly promotional is the external link. Deb (talk) 08:33, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1970

in your edit of 20:22, 19 November 2021 (UTC) of 1970 you introduced

  • <ref>{{cite journal|journal=Austrian Information|year=1969.volume=23|issue=6|page=8}}</ref>

which is missing a title. Please supply the title, and URL and author as well if possible. Also, {{cite journal}} is only for academic journals; you probably intended {{cite magazine}}. —Anomalocaris (talk) 18:12, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the notification. Deb (talk) 18:42, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion FxPro

Hello! Подскажите, пожалуйста, как мы можем восстановить страницу FxPRO?

Ранее вы ее удалили, но я вижу, что на сайте присутствуют такие же статьи на другие компании. Например, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forex_Club

Также данная компания имеет большую значимость, т.к. является международной.  На других языках статья о компании FxPRO не удалена - https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/FxPro, https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/FxPro, https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/FxPro

@Виктор Воронин Виктор Воронин (talk) 13:29, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to tell me something or ask me something, please use English or Welsh. Thanks. Deb (talk) 13:42, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please tell me how we can restore the "FxPRO" page?
Earlier you deleted it, but I see that there are the same articles on the site for other companies. For example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forex_Club
Also this company has a lot of importance as it is an international company.  In other languages, the article about FxPRO is not removed - https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/FxPro, https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/FxPro, https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/FxPro Виктор Воронин (talk) 16:02, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you so concerned about it, since you didn't write the draft? If you want to create a new draft, written in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines, no one is stopping you. Deb (talk) 16:05, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry will have to go public, please check it

God this is a maddeningly buggy site! Spent 3 hrs in visual editor, to replace their page, switched to html to be sure its a draft that you can check, and that deleted the entire thing!

I Have to get a page up for them. Doing it in visual and hitting publish seems safer as then it exists. All this is gone. Can you make it a draft and review it since you know how these work.


SusanatSolarPACES (talk) 00:31, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deb, this is the SolarPACES page rewrite, thanks, Susan SusanatSolarPACES (talk) 00:32, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:WikicommonsJessDiaz

Hello, you blocked this user two years ago as a promotion-only account. New account TheGreatJess, created in January, has heavily overlapping edits and has just recreated the spammy Advance Montessori Education Center of Isabela, Inc. of the original account. Thanks, 217.127.250.215 (talk) 06:47, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've blocked the user. Deb (talk) 07:02, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ABBYY

Hello, Deb,

The ABBYY title has been protected since June 2022

The ABBYY (company) article was rewritten by me from scratch by translation from https://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Redirect/revision/39216011 Then the article was significantly revised to strengthen the demonstration of the notability of the article's subject.

The subject has been of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, and that is demonstrated in the article, see also Talk:ABBYY (company).

Please move ABBYY (company) to ABBYY.

--Perohanych (talk) 08:50, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oleg Tolmachev (CEO)

Hi! Is that enough https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft%3AOleg_Tolmachev_%28CEO%29&diff=1156561313&oldid=1156514946 ? Are there any other specific comments on the article? --Perohanych (talk) 13:32, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Of course not. If you think it's ready, submit it for review and it will be rejected because it's promotionally-worded. Deb (talk) 14:03, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red - June 2023

Women in Red June 2023, Vol 9, Iss 6, Nos 251, 252, 271, 272, 273


Online events:

See also:

Tip of the month:

  • Looking for new red links? Keep an eye out for interesting and notable friends, family, or associates of your last article subject, and re-examine group photos for other women who may still need an article.

Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 09:15, 28 May 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Draft:Hudson Valley Writers Center

Hi Deb, you declined the CV speedy request on Draft:Hudson Valley Writers Center saying there's no violation, but the copyvio detector still reports quite substantial similarity with a number of sources, albeit that it's all quite fragmented. Are you using another detector tool and getting different results, or am I missing something? Or are you perhaps saying the fragmented nature of it isn't enough to make it a CV? Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:53, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No. I couldn't see, and still can't, any evidence of a CV worth acting on. It just seems to be names and titles that are duplicated, and there's nothing much you can do about that. Deb (talk) 17:15, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, no worries. I still think it's a bit more than just names etc., but you're probably right that it's not worth deleting all of it. I'll just remove the sections I think are CV and request revdel, then. Cheers, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:28, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Abraham David

Hi Deb, the page "Abraham David" has been deleted, kindly move the item to draft so I could go through it. Regards Hillarys (talk) 12:53, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Have you responded to the request for you to declare your conflict of interest? Deb (talk) 15:40, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of page The_Brains_Canadian_Psychobilly_Band

You deleted my page for copyright infringement, but there was NO infringement. The requester is conflating TRADEMARK with COPYRIGHT. The information I pposted is biographically accurate info about a different band of the same name. The info I used is used with the permission of the band. There was no coyright issue at all. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Brains_Canadian_Psychobilly_Band Strongwebs (talk) 18:49, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I deleted it as advertising, which it is. Deb (talk) 07:56, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Brains Canadian Psychobilly Band Issue

Hey. So remember that you deleted that page earlier. Well he created the page again with the same exact copyrighted text. A.R.M. 23:15, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – June 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2023).

Guideline and policy news

  • Following an RfC, editors indefinitely site-banned by community consensus will now have all rights, including sysop, removed.
  • As a part of the Wikimedia Foundation's IP Masking project, a new policy has been created that governs the access to temporary account IP addresses. An associated FAQ has been created and individual communities can increase the requirements to view temporary account IP addresses.

Technical news

  • Bot operators and tool maintainers should schedule time in the coming months to test and update their tools for the effects of IP masking. IP masking will not be deployed to any content wiki until at least October 2023 and is unlikely to be deployed to the English Wikipedia until some time in 2024.

Arbitration

  • The arbitration case World War II and the history of Jews in Poland has been closed. The topic area of Polish history during World War II (1933-1945) and the history of Jews in Poland is subject to a "reliable source consensus-required" contentious topic restriction.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:32, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Canterbury

Canterbury has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 01:28, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Systematic draftifications with inadequate explanation

Hi Deb,

You appear to be enforcing a personal rule that inexperienced editors are not allowed to put new articles in mainspace? Or is there something specifically inadequate about these new articles? In any case, I think your explanations “moved without review by inexperienced editor”


Example:


16:08, 10 June 2023‎ Deb talk contribs‎ m  10,779 bytes 0‎   Deb moved page Battle of Orchha to Draft:Battle of Orchha: not ready for article space - moved without review by inexperienced editor undothank Tag: Disambiguation links added)

—- SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:36, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Continue here from my talk. “ You appear to be enforcing a personal rule that …”, I hope we agree is short of a personal attack, but it is a suggestion that you are not appearing to abide by the guidance at WP:DRAFT. There is right now a quite pertinent discussion about liberal draftifications at WT:DRAFT.
I don’t think I have criticism of your draftifications, but of your messaging to the newcomer. I understand your preference to not tell a newcomer that their English is quite poor, but, two things, (1) I think that is a mistake as it’s better to upfront with the main problem, and (2), I’m not sure it is an acceptable reason (alone) to Draftify, as poor English and simple mistakes are actually encouraging of enticing newcomer edits to fix them (in the style of the early years of Wikipedia). SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:52, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I get that, but I feel that not pointing out to a newish user who is consistently producing articles of an unacceptably low standard that they need to submit their work for review is not doing them or anyone else any favours. Deb (talk) 15:11, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You draftified another of his creations, without feedback. Ok, I guess sufficient feedback was already previously here: User talk:Ajayraj890#Final warning. He deleted your warning, whether adminshopping, and tried tricks to evade being seen ignoring your advice? That’s serious. Your advice, “My advice to you is to use draft space and wait for your articles to pass review” I guess should be reworded as an “instruction” (it does come with a threat of block) and linked to in future draftifications, for the benefit of people like me, who come in late after the user approaches us for help. For the WP:FORUMSHOPPED.
Not all of his creations are as bad as the worst, but all are liable to contain unattributed quotes form the source material or too-close paraphrasing. I think a fresh note to that effect on his talk page might be a good idea? I could do it. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:14, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, feel free. I don't understand the reviewers who are passing articles that are barely intelligible. Deb (talk) 07:11, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of 2016 in Vietnamese music

Notice

The article 2016 in Vietnamese music has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

overly specific

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. jlwoodwa (talk) 05:33, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1375 books

A tag has been placed on Category:1375 books indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz Read! Talk! 07:43, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red July 2023

Women in Red June 2023, Vol 9, Iss 7, Nos 251, 252, 274, 275, 276


Online events:

Tip of the month:

Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 07:42, 27 June 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Helmut Koller

Hi Deb. I came across this deleted article while assessing a user for autopatrolled, and am a bit shocked by what I found. I'll just describe what the sequence of events looks like from my perspective—I'm sure you'll see it differently—and maybe we can work from there:

  1. Helmut Koller was created in mainspace
  2. It was nominated for WP:CSD#G11 [1]
  3. You made bold move of the article to draftspace, declining the CSD in the process [2]
  4. You told the author that this was because the article "doesn't seem to conform to the guidelines on Wikipedia:Advertising" (note that link is to a disambiguation page) and asked them to "work on it in draft before submitting for review".[3]
  5. Three weeks later, the author recreated Helmut Koller in mainspace with significant improvements to the tone [4]
  6. You deleted the recreation under G11 (the same criterion you previously declined) and indefinitely fully protected the title
  7. The draft was never submitted and was automatically deleted via WP:CSD#G13 six months later

Can you see what I mean? The author clearly objected to your bold move, which they had every right to, and yet at the same time made a good faith effort to address your concern. But because they didn't go through AfC as you asked—and correct me if I'm wrong, but you don't actually have any grounds for insisting that they do that—you used your admin tools to keep the article in your preferred location. Fortunately this user doesn't seem to have been discouraged, because I can imagine many inexperienced would have just given up if faced with this level of capriciousness. Am I missing some context here? – Joe (talk) 09:09, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. The original author was User:Arthistory21, if I'm not mistaken. His/her version was deleted by User:Seraphimblade as blatantly promotional, which it was. The draft was eventually deleted as abandoned in 2017. The version created by User:HRShami in 2022 was far from being his/her first article, and was substantially different from the previous version but still read as promotional, so I declined the speedy request and moved it to draft to offer them a chance to improve it. This draft was deleted by User:Liz in 2023 as abandoned. Despite the draft not having been reviewed, it was recreated with very little change to the promotional wording. I haven't had time to look through every version in detail, so I may have missed something. Let me know if you still disagree. Deb (talk) 09:35, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just talking about the 2022 version(s) created by HRShami. I suppose the root of the issue is the same as what SmokeyJoe was getting at above. It's fair enough to move something to draft because you think it's promotional, but what is the grounds for using your tools to keep it there over another editor's objections? Why did they have to use AfC? – Joe (talk) 10:42, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The answer to that is that I advised them that the article was too promotional to remain in article space, but that they were welcome to work on it in draft. Instead, they chose to recreate the article, with very little improvement, in article space. That strongly suggested that they were unable or unwilling either to take advice or to recognise the flaws in the content. Perhaps they had forgotten what came before, or perhaps it was an attempt to avoid having to go through a review, I don't know. (If you believe that the slightly revised article was of an acceptable standard, then of course that's quite a different argument.) Different editors have different views on how such a situation should be handled, and another administrator might not have given them the second chance that I had tried to offer them; then you wouldn't be coming here to berate me for an implied misuse of admin tools. But I'm used to this kind of criticism, so you'll forgive me if I don't continue this discussion any further at this time. Deb (talk) 12:26, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry you consider this berating, Deb. I've tried to approach this tactfully and with as open a mind as possible, but it really sounds like the answer to my last question boils down to "because I said so"? I don't think that attitude is within the acceptable range of discretion when using the admin tools and I'll have to think about what to do next, if you're not willing to change course on this. – Joe (talk) 12:38, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You must do what you think is right. I believe I've given you a perfectly reasonable explanation. Deb (talk) 13:40, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – July 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2023).

Administrator changes

added Novem Linguae
removed

Bureaucrat changes

removed MBisanz

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

  • Two arbitration cases are currently open. Proposed decisions are expected 5 July 2023 for the Scottywong case and 9 July 2023 for the AlisonW case.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:58, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Resubmission of a deleted page

Hi,

You recently deleted a page, Drafts:Swa Diamonds, marking it as advertising or promotion. I understand and accept the remark. I personally know the owners. The son of the owner, Jameel, who is a friend of mine asked me to create a page for them, as a favour. I will recreate the page, without any additional promotional materials. Hope it isn't an issue.

They won a Guinness record for incorporating most number of diamonds in a sing ring in 2022, and got a lot of international media attention including CNN and Fox News- I feel it is a big deal for a start-up company founded in a small state in India. And they won awards like the Swadesh National Award from a prestigious media firm in India which was awarded by central ministers at a national conclave held as part of India's 75th anniversary of Independence celebration. I feel they are worthy of a Wikipedia page in their name.

Libinthathappilly (talk) 13:46, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive Content Removal at Portal:Current Events

Hi Deb,

I wanted to seek your assistance on an editor's actions in relation to Portal:Current Events. As established in this discussion which you helped coordinate, consensus affirmed that names of countries should be added (and presumably linked) when locations are mentioned on the portal. This has been standard practice at the portal up until now, both prior to and subsequent to the discussion.

Recently, the editor has been enforcing the removal of countries (or sometimes cities) through deletion of the content [5], [6], contrary to standard practice and consensus. I note that for some removals, WP:OVERLINK is cited, but not actually relevant, given that adding the country and linking the article are separate actions [7]. In this entry, the same content is reverted three times [8], [9], [10].

Personal attacks have also been made on other editor's for adding and/or linking countries in the portal [11], with the user having a history of making personal attacks through his edit summaries at the portal, over a long period of time [12], [13], [14].

As you helped coordinate the previous discussion, I wanted to see if you could help resolve this issue. I have tried to address the civility issues with the user directly on his talk page, but was met with hostility [15] and refusal to engage in constructive discussion. The user also cited WP:CIR & WP:DTTR which I felt was unwarranted and potentially a personal attack.

I recently had a content dispute with this editor (as mentioned in his revert), where my conduct was admittedly not ideal, which may be the source of the hostility. However, the content dispute was resolved and this is an entirely different matter.

Please let me know what you think. Thank you for your help. Carter00000 (talk) 17:00, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For once I'd agree with you. It's not appropriate to remove geographical context, though I daresay User:IJBall (of whom I have no personal experience) would argue that he's just trying to keep it short for the purposes of the portal. In my experience, a few editors are obsessed with the idea of "overlinking" and make a habit of removing links wherever possible, and this particular user is no worse than others in this respect. I take your point about the personalized edit summaries, but I think you would need more egregious evidence of disruptive editing in order to get anywhere at ANI. Deb (talk) 17:11, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Deb, see my revert to your revert – many, many editors are needlessly violating WP:OVERLINK and WP:NOPIPE at Portal current events lately. Somebody needs to put a stop to that. Also, countries do not need to be included for major international cities (e.g. London), or when the context of the Current event entry makes the country's location obvious. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:13, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Deb&oldid=1163398964"